![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
"[...] In a case of life and death, where a complex decision needs to be made, who do you trust more to make a decision as to whether your situation is life threatening enough to warrant an abortion:
"A rabbi who shares your religion, your community, your values, deeply knowledgeable in your tradition, knows you, knows your particular situation, knows any extenuating circumstances, and knows how to be flexible in application if necessary?
"Or three Christian dudes on a committee, all of whom think abortion is mamesh murder, all of whom got their job through political connections and patronage, who very likely wanted this job specifically to deny as many applicants as possible, filling out a checklist
"Don't send the American political system to do halakha's job, particularly on pikuach nefesh"
-- Rabbi Akiva Weisinger (MisfitTorah), 2022-05-04
["Pikuach nefesh" -- the principle that preserving a human life trumps nearly every other rule of Judaism (in context: including preventing harm to the living person carrying a fetus (which is considered potential life IIUC)).]
(no subject)
(no subject)
While i might trust a certain person despite them being an avowed religionist, that doesn't mean they're any more desirable to opinionate on my, or anyone's, private issues.
The pregnant person is the only one who should decide what any decision is. While they might opt to hear input from a doctor or a religionist, neither should be able to override or set aside the pregnant person's choice.
Next step to watch for: a political ruling that any pregnant person is not qualified to make decisions because hormones are messing up "rational" thoughts. (the pregnant person is a woman, right? Hormones?)
If they get away with Roe, they've got to find a new crusade (religionist thing) to keep their 'base' riled up.
(no subject)
Pikuach nefesh: correct. We are not only allowed but required to violate any torah law (except for three) in order to save a human life. The classic story in the talmud about this is when a young boy who couldn't afford to pay for school would sit outside the window and listen. One winter Shabbat a snowstorm rolled in, the people inside noticed a dark shape at the window, they found him half-frozen, and the question was: can we light a fire to warm him? To which the answer was: of course. That young boy grew up to become Rabbi Hillel.
The rabbis generally take an expansive view of pikuach nefesh. It's not just "we know this person will die otherwise", but a serious risk is enough. The wife of a then-local Orthodox rabbi went into labor on Shabbat, and the rabbi very visibly paid for a cab to take her to the hospital. (Cab vs. ambulance? I don't know.)
There is no prioritization among human lives; except for the rodef (I'll get to that), you cannot kill one person to save another. This is important in the abortion case because the rabbis rule that you can and must abort if the mother's life is in danger. Judaism values the fetus as potential life, but it does not yet have the standing of an actual, born human. How much danger is needed is a matter of argument; I don't know of any rabbis who support abortion on demand "just because I wanna", but I know of some who sanction an abortion even when the pregnancy will probably "only" do serious harm and might not actually kill the mother. That's where that tweet is coming from: if you're the pregnant person seeking rabbinic guidance, your rabbi is going to take into account all the details of your situation -- the effect of the pregnancy on your mental health, your family's stability, genetic issues, your own risks in delivering, and so on.
A rodef is a pursuer; if somebody is attacking someone else with intent to kill that person, then the target (or a bystander) may use any means necessary to stop the attack, including killing the rodef if necessary. (Obviously we prefer it if the attack can be stopped non-lethally.) By choosing to attempt to commit murder, the rodef gives up his equal standing. This isn't an argument for "stand your ground" or the like; this is about defense against a clear, imminent threat of death.
The three prohibitions you cannot violate to save a life: murder, public idolatry, and sexual transgressions. If somebody points a gun to your head and says "eat the bacon cheeseburger or else", you eat. If the person says "kill so-and-so or I'll kill you", you take the bullet.
Uh, this ramble/info dump would be stronger with sources, but I'm doing this off the top of my head and it's late, so... sorry 'bout that.
(no subject)
Thanks.